Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject Council

General information
Main page talk
   To-do list
   Templates
Contacts talk

Resources
Guide talk
Assessment FAQ
Directory talk
Proposals talk
Newsletters talk
edit · changes
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Meta Project Template

The topic of a catchall project template seems to come up again and again, but obviously the task is too daunting for anybody to take on. I think that it is going to be very difficult both to create and mantain, but a simple solution to the project boxes cluttering the talk pages might be to enclose them in a box using the show/hide functionality: it would be fairly quick to code, and the same amount of time to implement. The only disadvantage I see is that anybody adding a project banner needs either to use the code to add it in the show/hide box (if it is the first project banner) or make sure they add their banner between the tags (id it is a subsequent addition). Thoughts? Yomanganitalk 10:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Project banners act as a way of promoting the WikiProject and so a template that hides them all will only result in a loss of advertising for at least one, if not several WikiProjects. Your average newbie user will typically not notice the show button, and if they do it is unlikely they will click on it. I would imagine a template like that would have a devastating effect on "passing trade". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's one issue to consider; could we set up the show/hide block such that the contents are shown by default.
(Another possibility that's been brought up a few times is coding all the WikiProject banners to use some particular CSS class that users could then hide via their own CSS settings. It's the established users you see complaining about them, after all, not the random passerby.) Kirill Lokshin 12:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Properly coded I'm sure it could list the projects that are hidden inside, still giving some "advertising" without dominating the page. Newbies perhaps don't complain because they are newbies, I'm not sure we can say that they like the big boxes just because we hear more complaints from established users who know where to complain and aren't nervous of charging in. Yomanganitalk 12:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject banners do a good job of 'advertising' the involvement of different WikiProjects in a particular article. I know that when a bot went through and tagged all the California articles for the California WikiProject, there was a big jump in project members. This was probably just from the editors seeing the banner's addition to the talk pages of articles on their watch lists.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that the verbiage in many of the WikiProjects banners can be condensed down to their absolute essentials. Especially for the article assessments, all that may be necessary is the boxes noting the article's class and importance, and none of the extra explanations. BlankVerse 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
One possibility. It might, emphasis might, be possible to create a single banner which includes a lot of options, which could then be "selected" for a given article. That banner might then display "This article is (phrasing of choice: part of, supported by, fanatically observed by, whatever) the following projects: (list). Such a single banner, if it were extant, would take up a lot less space. The problems would lie in that it would seemingly have to be changed every time a new project is called into existence. But, possibly, maybe making a group of banners, one for say every page of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, or perhaps by a more specific main subject range, might be sufficient to prevent overburdening the servers every time the banner is changed. Badbilltucker 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Not practical at all. The main issue still remains: each project has an arbitrary number of subsidiary options which must be supported. (See, for example, {{WPMILHIST}}, which has ~50 parameters of various sorts, many of which tie into fairly complex conditional logic.) A single template that supported all the things each project needs for any significant number of projects will be an utter nightmare to maintain. Kirill Lokshin 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If we do create a separate banner for assessments only, like the potential {{AAA}} banner, does anyone think it might be possible or practicable to change things such that the assessment that appears on that banner classifies articles for all the other banners that appear on the page? It would save space to have the assessment listed only once, and I do think that assessments should probably be uniform anyway. Also, it would make it easier to change an assessment grade if only one banner had to be changed, and probably make it easier for projects who don't have people with the time or inclination to do assessments. Badbilltucker 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
How would that work? Templates can't see other templates' parameters; the only way I could see something like that working would be to have the assessment grade placed on a subpage, which would probably be even messier an approach.
(The question of consistency among ratings is somewhat more complicated than one might guess. Some projects are more demanding than others in terms of requiring specific things for specific levels. If everyone is forced to have the same rating, which criteria would be used for it: the strictest set or the laxest one?) Kirill Lokshin 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how it would work, which was why I bolded the if. And I was hoping, actually, if it came to that, the strictest criteria would be used, as I think it would probably result in fewer disappointed GA or FA nominators. But I see your point. Badbilltucker 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The difference in ratings between projects is not a healthy situation. I would be strongly supportive of any function which consolidates assessments, so long as said function also supports article quality categories for relevant projects.--cj | talk 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Quality assessments should converge, but importance ones logically can't. A topic can inherently be more important to one project than another. Will Eisner is more important to understanding comics than to biography, for example. Steve block Talk 11:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I meant (in case anybody missed it and would like to comment). Yomanganitalk 09:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Derbyshire

I proposed that a WikiProject for the county of Derbyshire, [[1]] should be created. I couple of people have put their names down for it. Im just wondering what happens now? JFBurton 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizations and Wikipedians by WikiProject listing

Hello everyone! I've just begun overhauling the Organizations WikiProject, and I can't seem to figure out how to get our members list to work with the Wikipedians by WikiProject category properly. Any concise help and direction here would be appreciated. Cheers! Oldsoul 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject banners, cleaning up the clutter

Template talk:WikiProjectBanners, thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments should be made directly there, ideally. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is ideal at all. The result of moving the discussion in the Template talk pages, plus the way various projects have been informed about it, makes it very hard to see whether projects have been in agreement and what arguments were given by each. Instead, there is a feeling (speaking of WP Films) that "decisions have been taken" somehwere "above" us. I quote the latest comment on a poll we are taking in Films: "but I guess there was consensus in the past for this to be implemented". Where has this consensus taken place? Are projects represented in the consensus or is it mostly between WikiProject Banners members? Hoverfish Talk 08:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing articles lists for projects?

Hello. I'm new here, and apologize if you aren't the right people to bring this to. I'm from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, which doesn't seem to have been doing a lot lately. Do you here think that maybe it might be more productive to create project-specific missing article lists for the various projects, as opposed to trying to keep the missing articles project itself as a completely separate entity? I personally think that doing so might possibly be more effective and result in better quality articles faster than the current method. Thanks for any responses, and my apologies again if you aren't the right people to bring this to. John Carter 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. If you contact a WikiProject on Fish and say, "These fish articles are in EB, but not in Wikipedia" that will certainly spur people into action. You should be sure that those fish aren't already in Wikipedia, of course, because the lists you are working from are (probably) mostly out of date. I suspect when that project was active there were far fewer specialised WikiProjects, so it made sense to work that way. In 2007, it seems we have a WikiProject for almost everything (this is good, I'm not complaining!), so now we have access to people who will care a lot about writing an article about a small fish or a suburb of Dallas. That energy should be used to help achieve the very laudable goal of your project. Walkerma 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Any ideas which projects should be contacted in this way first? I'm also a member of the Mythology and Saints projects (I've done a few articles there) and noticed all the Religion and Philosophy projects. Would it be best to try to contact the projects that relate to the more general topics, say Mythology or Religion, and ask them to diffuse out the relevant articles to the other various projects in their fields, or to try to break up the lists to each individual project? Or, if it isn't best, as I don't think I would be qualified to do the specific individual project lists in all cases, would it be possibly at least acceptable? John Carter 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would think it best to compile lists of missing articles over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, then perhaps use WP:AWB to sort these via categories into topics. Then use listings from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory to locate active projects you could contact for help. I'd try to go for active projects first. I found at WP:WVWP that sometimes broad topics could be quite dead, but more narrow projects were very active. Record your activity - contacts and responses (perhaps like we did at WVWP) - and hopefully see some redlinks turning blue! I think you may find other people will start to work with you once you start making progress. Are there other suggestions out there? Walkerma 06:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films is concerned, we have developed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article department in WP Films which runs parallel to it, although the scope of our department is much broader and needs help to define what exactly is a missing article out of all the films without articles. Recently there has been some developments in Wikipedia:Notability (films), which may help us somehow, but I personally don't find any simple and practical lines to work on. I am not sure if a project merge would be the best solution, but at least a closer cooperation between our department and WP Missing encyclopedic articles would be very helpful. Hoverfish Talk 14:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting disussion at WikiProject Cities about inter-project relations

There is an interesting discussion going on at WikiProject Cities (discussion here) about inter-project relationships. In particular, what project tags should appear in which articles where there is a parent/descendant relationship between projects.

For example, if there were a WikiProject New York and a WikiProject Upstate New York, what should be the general guideline between the two of them:

  • Full "dual-tagging": The New York tag should be on all New York-related articles, with the Upstate tag appearing in addition on articles of interest to the Upstate project.
  • Limited "dual-tagging": The "New York" tag should be dual-tagged on only a few articles in the Upstate area, and only the Upstate tag appearing on almost all Upstate articles.
Example of limited dual-tagging: almost all Upstate cities would have just one tag (the Upstate tag only), and only the most important cities in the Upstate area (like Albany) would have both tags.

I suggest that this discussion raises larger issues of inter-project cooperation and relationship, that are going to arise routinely as WikiProject continue to grow:

  • Who decides which tag appears on which article (the parent? the descendant?)
  • What are the costs/benefits of "full dual-tagging" versus "limited dual-tagging"?
  • Does one method or the other promote cooperation/Balkanization?
  • Are there alternatives to the parent/descendant separate WikiProject model which might work better?

These issues may well arise in many contexts - for example (hypothetically) WikiProject American Folk Dancing versus WikiProject American Square Dancing. I suggest these issues are worthy of a closer look before conflicts develop. Spamreporter1 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another area is where the topic is interdisciplinary and is claimed by two Projects. One example is that many articles on Physical Chemistry and Chemical Physics have both the Chemistry Project tags and the Physics Project tags. This does not cause any problems but it points to the need for collaboration between the two groups and that is not always happening. --Bduke 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A great many WikiProjects are started by topic rather than by "work needing to be done" or some other logical scoping of articles. It's not always a good idea (nor is it a bad idea, just inefficient) to make so many specific groups or even non-specific but "already covered" scopes. The ones that are a good idea for better focus within a scope are usually best done via task forces, which is an idea that has great potential and is already being seen as a good organization method. -- Ned Scott 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, promoting the idea of task forces seems like the easiest way to deal with the bulk of this problem. Not only that, but from the Proposals page you can see that a lot of people are suggesting projects before they know if they should or even if a project already exists. Maybe we could have something like "please read this FAQ before suggesting a new project" to help with this? -- Ned Scott 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The basic problem with task forces/work groups is that is assumes a strict hierarchical relationship (almost ownership like) between two WikiProjects, when things are often more of a web of connections. Why is WikiProject Indian cinema a "work group" of Wikipedia:WikiProject India, but a descendent of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films? BlankVerse 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Because Films hasn't adopted a task force structure from its end, I'd guess; compare Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Military history. Kirill Lokshin 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Inter-WikiProject Discussion thus far

The question: Where there is a parent/descendent relationship between two WikiProjects (WPs), when should the descendant WP tag be the only tag that appears, and when should articles have both the parent and descendent tags?

The following is my (hopefully very brief) summary of the discussion thus far on the issue of when and whether WP tags should be removed, or whether articles should have two WP tags ("dual-tagged"). To use a (hypothetical) example, when should the [[WP:OHIO]] tag be "dual-tagged" on all Ohio city articles, and when should the [[WP:WEST OHIO]] tag be the only tag that appears on Ohio city articles?

Option 1 - "Very limited dual-tagging." Just a few, the "most important," local articles are dual-tagged; all other local articles have only the descendent WP tag.

  • Pro - promotes clarity, focus for the descendent WP; analogize to category structure: only the most local cat appears in the cat hierarchy; reduces conflict in assessment scales
  • Con - parent WP is harmed by not being able to recruit or offer standards; analogy to category structure not valid, because senior cat is not harmed; no harm to local WP by dual-tagging

Option 2 - "Full dual-tagging." All articles within a relevant area have both parent and descendent tags.

  • Pro - promotes cooperation between WPs, allows both WPs to recruit, does not harm descendent, avoids "tag revert wars" (no WP tags should be removed without consent of that WP)
  • Con - creates tag-clutter and confusion; encourages inter-WP conflict; reduces ability of local WP to recruit

Option 3 - "Some dual-tagging." Middle-ground between Option 1 and Option 2 - a significant number (but not all) are dual-tagged.

  • Pro - "best of both worlds"? Allows parent access to a significant number of articles, while giving descendent focus and clarity; "where to draw the line" is subject to express agreement between the WPs
  • Con - needlessly complex; will lead to endless debates about "where to draw the line"

Option 4 - "Project/Sub-project" structure. Avoids tagging controversy altogether by having local project be a "sub-project" (that is, it has its own page, COTW, etc., but not a separate tag) - see WP:AUSTRALIA and WP:INDIA as examples.

  • Pro - this is the best of both worlds; both projects are able to have their own identity, community and tasks, without having to argue about tags; WPs are able to interact without worrying about "turf wars"
  • Con - this makes it too difficult for the local WP to maintain its identity, and the local will wither into the parent

I have likely neglected some arguments (probably your favorite argument) pro and con - but the intent here is to summarize briefly the points of view that have been expressed thus far. Responses are being collected at WT:SOCAL and/or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject. Spamreporter1 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another option currently employed by WP:GER & its subprojects. Integrated tagging. The subproject is on a switch of the main banner. Agathoclea 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Agathoclea. In order that others may also see your suggestion, I have copied your comment to the pages where this conversation is taking place. Thanks again.Spamreporter1 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

To try to follow all discussions on this issue, you have to look at the talk pages for at least four different WikiProjects (California, SoCal, CITIES, and COUNCIL), as well as the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject, because the sockpuppet [2] Spamreporter1 has been copying different comments to the different pages without telling the different WikiProjects or the authors of those comments, and without identifying where the different comments came from. BlankVerse 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The views of each of those Projects was solicited because each is affected by the topic. I have requested that any responses be condensed, and have assisted that process. People are going to respond where they want, and I'm trying to avoid disputes over where the conversation is going to take place, by performing the clerical act of copying responses. If anyone has a suggestion of a single place that all interested parties are comfortable watching and responding there, that would be a good solution. Spamreporter1 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All done by a bot

I have to wonder if some of the extreme hostility and incivility that has been part of this discussion on this project's talk page, and some other project's talk pages is the result of some editors assuming that the SoCal WikiProject has been 'undoing' some editor's hard work. In reality, the tagging of almost all the article talk pages (on over 10,000 articles!) with the {{WikiProject California}} banner was done by a Bot, User:MetsBot. At the time, the bot's owner received quite a few complaints, and because of that quit doing any bot-tagging for WikiProjects. It really wasn't the bot's fault, but the fact that that some articles had been miscategorized (such as a couple of Oregon cities that probably some waggish vandal had categorized as California cities). BlankVerse 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners

Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty important. {{WikiProjectBanners}} is a dreadful idea. The entire point of it is to hide WikiProject talk page banners completely, unless someone goes intentionally looking for them, which of course will never happen. It effectively removes ratings and assessments, /Comments, sub-project/task force labels and all other features intended for editor eyes, unless the editor happens to be a WikiProject supergeek and goes manually looking for the information. This template doesn't even bother to briefly name what the projects are! Ick. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to debate this here, there is plenty of that on the TFD. I, for one, am for it.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I do think that this is a red-flag to all of us in this project, that WikiProjects need stronger guidelines. Frustrated Wikipedians can be very scary. We need to make simple, easy to use, helpful, and more aggressive guidelines on WikiProjects and things like their banners. We have some good stuff now in the guide, but a lot of people haven't even seen the guide. I also think we should have a more simplistic guide that covers the main issues and most common stuff, with a second page for the more advanced stuff. We should also move the guide out of our sub-pages, giving it more presence. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I commented above about discussion being diverted to Template talk pages. I am not a frustrated Wikipedian, I certainly don't want to be scarry, and my only wish is to make it clear that projects have not got any idea what this guide is, or even where it. Instead we were given links to various template talk pages and we were faced with lots of technical details, which may well go above our heads. Hoverfish Talk 08:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProjects Noticeboard

I created a noticeboard for WikiProjects so that mass-messages for WikiProjects are no longer needed. Enjoy! How do you suggest I increase awareness of this board? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A good start would be notes on WP:VP and WP:AN. Perhaps a note in the instructions for starting a new project too... Slambo (Speak) 12:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Community Portal. Walkerma 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do we have a notice board when we have this talk page that is hardly used, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject? -- Ned Scott 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject is a talk page for WikiProjects in general, and this talk page is for the council. The noticeboard is blatantly for announcements relevant to all WikiProjects. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but given the lack of activity on the first two talk pages it just seems it might just spread out discussion in an undesired way (people not noticing the notice board). But I guess it's worth a shot. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought one of the purposes of this talk page was also to serve as a de-facto WikiProject noticeboard? Titoxd(?!?) 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject's Collaberation of the Month/Week

Some Wikiproject's COTM have banners added to the article space. (See The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), Mormon pioneers, Tax, Muhammad Ali for examples.) GameKeeper has brought this up as a general point here Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references#Wikiproject's Collaberation of the Month/Week. He would much prefer them to be added to the talk , rather than the article space. Since such a policy would affect all WikiProjects, with about half of the projects using the talk space and about half using the article space, I thought the council should weigh in on the discussion. Morphh (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the banners serve to promote the collaboration and advertise the project, than it makes sense that they would go on the talk page along with the project templates, which serve a similar purpose. - Mocko13 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcements for All WikiProjects box

Someone -- I think it was Phil Boswell -- had an idea for a collapsable box that could be placed on every WikiProject page that would have announcements relevant to all WikiProjects. I suppose this would work in tandem with the noticeboard; discussion could take place on the noticeboard and the template could be used for short announcements. Who has more ideas about this announcement box? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there really enough cross-project announcements to make this worthwhile? I've seen maybe three in the last year or so. Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As many as three? I've seen Badbilltucker's announcement about Wikipedia week and nothing else. If an announcement was broad enough to warrent alerting every single wikiproject, why wouldn't it be put on the Community Portal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "WikiProject Banners"

If anyone is interested I have proposed "WikiProject Banners", a WikiProject to set standards for, and help projects with, WikiProject banners at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banners

I note that there are now talk page templates which a new project without having to create their own separate template. For newer projects, this might save a lot of time and effort involved in creating a new template. Does anyone think it might be a good idea to encourage newer projects to use this template (User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14) and simply "plug in" their own project data, rather than going through the effort of creating one. That also might prevent cases where people create templates for projects before they create the project itself, as was done with Template:WikiProject Alabama. John Carter 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject reform

I've put together an embryonic proposal for some general reforms of how WikiProjects are set up; comments and suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, basic principles are sound, Wikipedia would benefit from better definitions between overlapping WPs. Some comments:
First, whether the junior projects are going to be known as "task forces," "sub-projects," or some other name is, I think, a fair topic of discussion. How many current WPs will be prepared to give up "WP status" to become mere "task forces" is I think a topic of legitimate administrative concern. Marketing the new structure with appealing terminology will be important I suggest.
Second, on geographically-based WPs, I suggest that for most countries, having the country WP be the main WP makes sense (having a WP France with a "Normandy Task Force," for example). However, for (at least) the United States, having State WPs be the main WP structure appeals to me - hence, have a "WP Texas" with a "Southeast Texas Task Force" (rather than having the whole state of Texas be a task force of WP USA).
Finally, how would "sub-task forces" work? Would a "Houston Task Force" be a subpart of the "Southeast Texas Task Force" or a subpart of WP Texas?
Overall, an important step in the right direction! Spamreporter1 22:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The specifics are largely open to discussion; the main distinction between a fully independent project and a whatever we call this new thing is the removal of independent infrastructure (in particular, the change to a merged project tag), not the name (or even the subpage issue).
As far as your last point: the difference isn't a substantial one. They would both use the WP Texas banner/processes/etc.; what their exact relationship beyond that would be is entirely up to them. Kirill Lokshin 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
One thing we should definitely try to do is not make task forces seem like "downgrades". WikiProjects in general are just groupings of things that already exist (the editors, the ideas, many of the guidelines, discussions). How we portray this image is very important and will determine how smoothly this process will go. -- Ned Scott 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, given your current interest, it would be interesting to have your input on the reorganisation currently going on here, regards sbandrews 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not have a problem with the general concept, I do have a problem with the logistics of your proposal. This may be best described with an example.
I am a member of WP:SOCAL but not a member of the parent wikiproject WP:CAL. The following are the statistics for the two projects:
WP:CAL
California
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 2 3 3 5 1 14
A 2 2 4
Good article GA 1 10 4 5 1 21
B 11 35 57 38 25 166
Start 6 69 160 243 169 647
Stub 2 87 236 920 375 1620
Assessed 24 204 462 1211 571 2472
Unassessed 4 23 26 28 8111 8192
Total 28 227 488 1239 8682 10664
WP:SOCAL
Southern California
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 2 5 7
A 1 1
Good article GA 1 5 6
B 3 10 19 12 10 54
Start 1 6 30 64 35 136
Stub 2 36 182 53 273
Assessed 5 19 87 263 103 477
Unassessed 2 1 1 2 373 379
Total 7 20 88 265 476 856
Say you combine the two projects with single banner. Now if I want to assess articles with no importance rating for the Southern California Region, I would have to sift through 9171 articles instead of 435. A large majority of these articles would be from Northern California, of which I could not fairly assess since I have little expertise of that region.
Unless the single banner proposal can subcategorize articles, you might find it hard for editors to support this proposal.
For anyone interested, this debate has been ongoing here, taking up most of the sub-conversations. Brien Clark 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As concisely as possible: Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a hard time figuring out why people would look for articles to edit / assess based on it being in Southern California rather than just California. It's only one of many possible ways to group articles, and not necessarily the best. You could make the same argument for SOCAL as one could for ANY topic or region. It's not always best to break things down in that way, especially considering pre-existing projects and so on. Unless it's to divide a massive amount of work, that I might be able to see, but how many of these articles keep being tagged with both banners? Notice that when WP:ANIME tags an article you don't also see WP:TV, because there it makes sense to divide the work rather than share the work.
That being said, Kirill has yet again found the best of both worlds. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would we be only interested in Southern California articles? For the same reason anyone would be interested in Louisville rather than Kentucky, or New York Public Transportation rather than New York or Public transportation: it's just what we like. I live in SoCal, and am likweise more interested in it; I also know much more, and so can contribute more and better to those articles. —ScouterSig 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I consider 10,000 articles of WP:CAL a lot of work. And the both banner issue is primarily the issue driving the debate between the two projects. Brien Clark 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at how {{WikiProject Germany}} handles for example Munich. One banner - seperate importance rating. Agathoclea 09:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It's not difficult to set up a single banner to provide each task force with the needed statistics. Kirill Lokshin 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
We've had separate importance ratings for some rail transport subprojects through {{TrainsWikiProject}} for some time now. There are separate importance ratings for WP:NYPT, WP:RTPJ and WP:LT integrated into the one banner. As importance ratings are established for subprojects, I add them to the template. Slambo (Speak) 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature suggestion

Since one of the concerns expressed above is that some local WPs may resist feeling "downgraded" to "task forces" or some other title, how about the following: Leave "WikiProject" as the title of local projects, and come up with a new title instead for the Parent-level collections of editors. This gets over the resistance of local projects, and avoids the wholesale re-naming of many hundreds of existing communities.

Instead, we'll come up with a new title that would affect a much smaller number of Parent-level WPs, which would more cheerfully be accepted by them as an "upgrade." Hence, WikiProject France would now become "Wiki____ France" (whatever new title we come up with), and contained within it would be descendent WikiProjects Paris, Normandy and Provence (to use hypothetical examples).

If anyone likes this nomenclature idea, any bright suggestions of a new title for Parent-level collections of editors? Spamreporter1 15:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "WikiDepartment" as the name of a parent group? Alternately, maybe we could make the name WikiProject apply only to those specific projects which are responsible for the creation of infoboxes. Thus, we would probably limit the number of WikiProjects to maybe 20 or 30, including some of the smaller projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Then, all the other working groups, task forces, or whatever they're called wouldn't feel "downgraded". I know the Saints Project I work with probably only uses infoboxes which are properly under the domain of Biography. The others that come to mind as making infoboxes are Philosophy, Religion, Countries, Highways, Military History, History, Tree of Life and maybe a few more of the sciences, Video Games, Media, Music, and a few others. And, of course, if any of the smaller projects ever do go dormant, they could comparatively easily be absorbed into the WikiProject which creates their infoboxes. John Carter 15:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Bleh. The problem with that idea is that it requires pagemoves for the larger groups rather than the smaller ones, which is somewhat counterintuitive, and will make this into a lot more work than was intended.
Perhaps a better idea would be to have an explicit gradation of WikiProjects? For example, you'd have Tier 1 WikiProjects, Tier 2 WikiProject, Tier 3 WikiProjects, etc., each of which would have a somewhat different structural form. This would work best with some variant of the accreditation proposal, which could determine which tier the project qualified for; but it could be done even without that. Kirill Lokshin 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Making the "Tiers" explicit is a good idea. Are you thinking that the Tier would be part of the name itself, or simply some type of internal structural element? Spamreporter1 17:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sort of internal (or external) metadata, to remove the need for mass page moves. If we decide to actually use the tiers for something, we could have, say, an official "List of WikiProjects by tier" that people could use as a reference, and presumably the projects themselves would have notes to the effect of being certain-tier projects; but I envision it more of a shorthand notation for projects that are supposed to be doing something in particular (e.g. Tier 1 = project uses integrated field in parent project's tags; Tier 2 = project tags talk pages with own tags; etc.). Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some level of feeling downgraded might be unavoidable for some, but it's only a temporary and superficial feeling. We need to do our best in showing that this is not a downgrade, but a reorganization. Many people have the same misconception from articles being merged, that one topic is being "downgraded" rather than being reorganized information. One way I think we can do this is conveying the idea that the WikiProject participants are still just as important (and are able to be more helpful) in being a task force. Remind them that it helps their efforts and goals, which is the whole reason we are here, and they will be able to do more by being set up as a task force. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not work with the current parent/descendent/similar project organization?

No matter how you word this proposal and what names you choose, and no matter how you might try to explain things, this proposed 'nomenclature' change will make many current wikiprojects feel like they are being relegated to a subordinate status with less control over their wikiproject. Don't forget it is usually those low level projects that are the most active. The most likely response for many of those projects will be "only on a cold day in hell".

Reading through the discussion, I do not see any real justification for making the proposed changes. You should also consider that what has worked for WP:MILHIST and WikiProject Trains is not necessarily what will work for every wikiproject.

I also think that you have not thought through the logistics involved. For just one example, WP:Anime has four parents and six descendants (as well as five active similar wikiprojects). Should it become a "task force" of all four parents, similar to WP:MILAIR (with all of WP:Anime's articles also added to all four parents)? Does each descendant then become a task force of a task force? Many, if not most wikiprojects have multiple parents, and many have multiple descendants. I think that the task force approach can be useful for some simple hierarchies but is not appropriate for wikiprojects where there are more complex relationships involved.

This proposal, along with suggestions for creating wikiproject accreditation (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#Question and other sections on that page), just looks like unnecessary bureaucracy. Both proposals also look very un-wiki-like.

Instead of trying to change things to the way you think they should work, you should instead work with the existing structure to facilitate more cooperation, coordination, and communication between parent and descendant projects. Communication between similar wikiprojects is something that could also improve. AsylumInmate 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we would use our heads here. For example, WP:ANIME would not be merged or become a task force for a few reasons, one of which is that it's one of the more successful WikiProjects. The grouping of articles as "anime and manga" isn't just an area of interest, they are also logical groupings with technical reasons (templates with japanese text, common "english-licensing" situations, translations, terminology), and it makes sense to break up the work load like that. Just because a project has a parent project does not mean it will or should become a task force.
No one is being forced here, rather, groups will only become task forces when it makes sense and yields better results for all. We are not going after active and healthy projects, no matter how small they are. We are going after the inactive and / or needlessly confusing (guideline forking, spreading out centralized discussion, etc) ones. We're also trying to fight the idea that WikiProjects are for categorization or fanclubs.
In some cases, even an active project might find improvement with some form of restructuring similar to task forces. The reform proposals are powerful tools to help us improve the way we collaborate, and you are right, they are not for everyone. You do not need to worry about that. -- Ned Scott 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biggest projects by members.

Is there a way of working out a ranking of the largest projects by members? Of not, can we start one? A table with the date the projects started and membership would be useful to look at. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN put this together recently: User:SatyrTN/test.↔NMajdan•talk 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That's all assessment related, not by membership. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, sorry, my apologies. I read it wrong. Is there any correlation between number of articles in a WikiProject and the number of users?↔NMajdan•talk 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
None, so far as I know. WP:INDIA has roughly the same number of users as WP:LGBT but four times as many articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see how having such a list could possibly be detrimental to some projects, although I could see a definite advantage to having some stat regarding the number of articles within a project relative to the number of members. Using the data given above, the ratio of members to articles for the LGBT project would be four times as high as that for the India project. On that basis, it might become clearer to some editors that one project had a greater need than another, and possibly more in need of additional members. Also, of course, I note that some projects, like WikiProject Saints, list everybody who has ever joined as a member, while other projects have particular sections for inactive or retired members. Unless there were significant standardization in that regard, I can see how any such list would be a very likely cause of controversy. John Carter 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a somewhat inaccurate list that may be found here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Proliferation

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_reform#WikiProject_Proliferation. --kingboyk 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of Independence

I left this note on the WP:SPORTS talk page, requesting that WP:OLYMPICS can remove the "Sports" part from its project name:

When in the course of Editing, it becomes necessary for one WikiProject to dissolve the Links which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of Wikipedia, the separate and equal Project Page to which the Policies of Wikipedia entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Wikipedians requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
In other words, some of the members of WikiProject Sports Olympics have expressed that we should remove the name "Sports" from our project. At the time it was created, it was only meant to be a sub-project of the Sports project, but Olympic-related articles have enumerated and thus have a whole different set of policies. Since you are our parent WikiProject, I figured that I'd let you know before we declare a Revolution.
If anyone has any objections, then, against moving our Wikiproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics, off with your heads! (or just drop us a note on the project talk page, or my talk page). └Jared┘┌talk┐  21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a process I need to run this through, please point this out. Otherwise, I'll do the move of the page and all subpages myself (or someone who can do it fast can do it for me!). └Jared┘┌talk┐  21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like much of an issue, but you really shouldn't think of it as something like.. respect or even something that is entitled. That's a bad way to think about WikiProjects. Other than that, if it makes sense to change the name then do so, but don't remove connections when you don't need to. Related WikiProjects should still have connections. -- Ned Scott 11:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I didn't mean it the way it sounded. I just wanted to take the name "Sports" out of the project. I wasn't thinking to break ties with them. I just wanted to assert that we are capable of having our own named project! └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi guys. Is there anyone who would be interested in helping sort out the issue going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AWARDS - taskforce?

It's been suggested that the awards wikiproject be made a taskforce of the council, owing to the fact that it guides the process for wikiproject awards and in light of the proposed wikiproject reforms. I think this is a good idea, as it would ensure turnout for new proposals, something that is lacking at the moment. So, to feel out the waters, would the council be agreeable to taking on wikiproject awards? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on the idea. The Council is more a centralised discussion place than an actual active WikiProject, so having a taskforce would seem somewhat incongruous. Why not attach it to WP:KC instead in some way?--cj | talk 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:KC is basically a page with a list of members and some suggestions on how to be nice. I am loathe to do anything whatsoever to it that results in it having "programs". I'm sure you can see where I'm going here. Given that the council is now moving into discussions that are resulting in Wikipedia wide changes (ie, the templates), it seems logical that this be the next step. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see that there's a logical connection between the purpose of the Council and that of WikiProject Awards. If it can't stand alone, and isn't relevant to some other project or process, then perhaps it'd be best to do away with it.--cj | talk 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As the one who first proposed the idea, my reasoning was that many of the awards are at this point tied to specific projects. The members of this group, being from so many scattered areas of interest as they are, probably represent the most active, largest cross-section of wikipedia, and on that basis might be among the best people to solicit for opinions on new awards, particularly as many of the existing awards which have already passed muster have been ones in whose creation they were involved. I agree that the connection between the two groups directly could be seen as being rather tenuous, but the members of this group might also be among the most useful contributors to the discussions for the Awards project. John Carter 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree with cj. Our business is WikiProjects, no more no less. --kingboyk 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We need help to organize film related awards. Right now we have a WP for Academy Awards, which states WP Flms as parent. The project was left mostly unmanned for a while and last time I heard from it had only one active member. But there are many more awards connected with film and with other entertainment media and arts. Lately several more awards and film festivals have started moving and it may be a good time to decide how to contain the various efforts. Is it best to create a film specific project, or task force for film awards/festivals, or to have a wider WP for art and entertainment (or culture) awards? Hoverfish Talk 14:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose creation of project

Would the rest of you think a Wikipedia:WikiProject Music groups would be a good idea or not? We already have several band-specific projects, with calls for the rest to set up as task forces, and I personally think this might be the best name for the umbrella group. John Carter 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Flextech & Wikipedia:WikiProject Groups

Please advise as to what if anything should be done with these pages. John Carter 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD is the best place for them, I suspect; neither one seems to have any content worth preserving, and it's not clear that either is a good scope for a project, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mess at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture

Something weird has happened to the above page. I don't know exactly what is wrong, though, so I mention it here. On a side note, I've gone through and compiled a list of all the different projects which can be found at the Wikipedia:Quick index page starting with WikiProject, Wikiproject, etc., and find a lot of names which aren't on the directory as is. I don't think I quite understand the layout of the directory, so I'll add in those projects whose placement I can be relatively sure I understand (primarily geographical and other fairly definite topics) and probably will list them here when I'm done for the rest of you to sort out. John Carter 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject advertising

I think almost everyone here would agree that advertising your Wikiproject in articlespace is a bad idea. However, as far as I can see, there is nowhere in wikipedia that says you cannot. You'd think WP:SELF would cover it, but it actually states that "selfreferences in stubs" are common. And that's exactly where I found this. See older versions of {{buffyverse-stub}} and {{DoctorWho-stub}}. Now I removed these references to WikiProjects keeping in mind the "spirit" of WP:SELF, but perhaps it would be a good idea to state this somewhere more clearly ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this practice at WP:WSS some time ago (it should be in the project talk page archives). It was generally agreed there that we shouldn't link to WikiProjects in the stub notice text. Slambo (Speak) 15:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It was the talk page of WP:STUB around the 13th of Feb 2006, and discussion was moved to the village pump here. [3]
It seems "no concensus" was the result. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Come on, it's a horrible self reference and commonsense says "no". Main space contains articles, not advertisements for project infrastructure. --kingboyk 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Found another discussion about it on WSS, although it didn't really go anywhere: [4] --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics Lab

This is not a WikiProject proposal so much as a request for input. There is a new Graphics Lab project that is trying to find a place in the English Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab#Merge with Wikipedia:Requested pictures for a discussion on how it could be integrated into existing projects to avoid conflicts and confusion. Thanks! MithrandirMage 01:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version 1.0 project banner

Anyone here know how to add the requested specs to the new 1.0 project banner as requested here? John Carter 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check your wikiproject's categories for deletions!

Apparently User:Voice of All has taken it upon him/herself to do a mass-deletion of categories, including at least one from WP:ETHNIC. I'm trying to establish whether or not he/she notified anyone of this action (it doesn't seem so... but I'm not certain...). Meanwhile, check your cats. Perhaps some of yours were deleted as well... --Ling.Nut 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it perhaps among those listed at User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted, as VoA is indicating in the deletion logs? If so, this is a clearing of empty categories per WP:CSD C1, though I'm not sure why assessment categories (like Category:A-Class Bangladesh articles) need to be deleted. Also Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action has been restored, if that's the one you meant. Gimmetrow 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Many many assessments categories got deleted (I've restored a dozen or so). However, the folks concerned have been given an ear bashing already; it's yesterday's news and I'm sure it won't happen again. If anybody (non admin) finds a category red which should be blue and if they're not an admin, they can either recreate it or ask me or the original deleter to restore it. --kingboyk 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a ton of categories here! I've already undeleted over 200, and I only got to FA-Class before my wrist started hurting. Can someone else help here? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm worried this will happen again. It happened earlier this month and I let a few admins know and apparently it happened again.↔NMajdan•talk 14:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe "a ton" = 3700. I wish I could help, but have schoolwork & have done too much Wiki lately already. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, at most it is another... 500. Sigh. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Did they delete them manually or with a bot? I'd send them the list and say you deleted them, now you can restore them :) Harsh but fair methinks. --kingboyk 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think manually, or at least, with Firefox tabs or something similar. Still... it's a lot. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Gotcha. Was irritated. OK now. --Ling.Nut 22:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah so was I, and I complained loudly. I think they've heard enough :) --kingboyk 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, a lot of priority/importance categories were deleted. Check your category trees, everyone. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's still ~ 110 GA categories still to undelete, but I'm out of time. If anyone wants to have a look at those, then that would be very much appreciated. By the way, I did not undelete Disambig-Class, List-Class, Template-Class, Category-Class and Needed-Class categories either, and I didn't check if there were Low-Importance, Mid-Importance and High-Importance / Priority categories buried there. Also, please, if you have redundant categories, or if your project has switched category names in the past, please double-check that those categories are deleted, and if they are not, send them to CFD, or tag them for speedy deletion with a clear edit summary (you have no idea how valuable those were while checking what to undelete and what to keep deleted.) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of our categories are indeed deleted: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment (See the red links half way trough). I'd like them back. We aren't even fully active yet, and simply because that takes long, the cat's get deleted. I don't like that at all. Good work on catching this major screwup from the people involved. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there or can there be some rule to notify a WikiProject before CfD'ing a category (and other important templates and articles, like lists) that bears its talk-page WP template? It often happens that we find a closed CfD or AfD with no one in WP Films having been notified to participate. Hoverfish Talk 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template for talk pages of articles

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Proposed template for talk pages of articles. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 09:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProjects

This is a list of the projects which I have just recently added to the directory. I haven't quite figured out how that thing is actually supposed to work, so if you see any which should be added to other sections please feel free to do so. I should note that each of these new projects is currently in at least one place in the directory, but, as I put them there, maybe not the right place. John Carter 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Tulips nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tulips. Slambo (Speak) 10:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a wikiproject on tulips? --tjstrf talk 11:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We're not supposed to, really. (I suspect that someone created it after seen the examples in the project guide, which I had constructed on the—apparently mistaken—assumption that nobody would actually want a WikiProject for tulips, and hence that the example could be a purely hypothetical one.) Kirill Lokshin 11:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol! That's great. --kingboyk 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals page

Hello, all. There are still over 150 proposed projects over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I dunno, but I think that's kinda a lot. If any of you think that those that already have over 5 members (there are a few of them) should be started, please feel free to do so. John Carter 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phrasing on assessment page

It has recently come to my attention that some people can construe some of the phrasing in some of the importance parameters (particularly the phrase "generally notable" outside the field of the project) as the basis for challenging the existing less-than-top importance ranking of some articles. Suggest that anyone who has such phrasing intact on the assessment page maybe change it to "particularly generally notable" or something else to help reduce the possibility of such challenges arising again. John Carter 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about WikiProject

I want to create a WikiProject on the Tudors. There don't seem to be a lot of history wikiprojects and those there are are very broad (ie, all of antiquity, or the entire Aztec civilisation). There is a WikiProject European history, but it was only set up two months ago and exists in a very rudimentary form. So, should I set this up as a separate project, or try and form a taskforce of EUROHIST, even though it will probably overshadow the main project? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean something like WP:BROY, or a more general project on the entire Tudor period? Kirill Lokshin 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The entire Tudor period, from Henry VIII to Elizabeth. I'm not talking fashions and stuff, but things like Kett's Rebellion and the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. History. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a task force of WP:ENGLAND, then. The "Tudor period" really only makes sense as a topic in the context of British history; going all the way up to European history doesn't seem helpful (particularly given the fact that that project is entirely catatonic). Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, but WP:ENGLAND has only been around three months and seems equally inactive. Same problem, really. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Council_9e52.html"